THE  JUMANO   INDIANS   IN 
TEXAS,   1650-1771 


BY 


HERBERT  E.  BOLTON 


Reprint  from  The  Quarterly  of  the  Texas  State   Historical   Association, 
Volume  XV,  No.  1. 


Bancroft  Library 


THE  JUMANO  INDIANS  IN  TEXAS,  1650-1771 

HERBERT  E.  BOLTON 
I.       THE  JUMANO  MYSTERY 

Among  the  many  subjects  on  which  the  archives  of  Mexico  are 
now  shedding  new  and  much  needed  light,  one  is  that  of  the  his 
tory  of  the  Jumano  Indians  after  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth 
century.  In  the  early  annals  of  New  Mexico  and  southwestern 
Texas  the  tribe  was  well  known,  and  though  they  were  less  promi 
nent  after  1629,  a  few  references  to  them  between  that  date  and 
the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  have  been  long  available.  But 
of  their  movements  thenceforth  students  have  until  recently  found 
little  trace.  Bandelier,  writing  in  1890,  was  constrained  to  say: 
"The  Jumanos  were  lost  sight  of  after  the  great  convulsions  of 
1680  and  succeeding  years,  and  their  ultimate  fate  is  as  unknown 
as  their  original  numbers."1  Similarly,  Hodge,  in  a  recent  study, 
states  that  until  shortly  before  his  writing  he  had  been  "baffled  by 
what  appeared  to  be  the  sudden  and  almost  complete  disappear 
ance  of  this  once  populous  tribe."2  The  present  writer,  through 
his  investigations  in  the  archives  of  Mexico,  had  the  good  fortune 
to  pick  up  the  thread  again  in  1907  and  to  show  that  from  1750 
forward  the  Taovayas,  a  Wichita  tribe  of  the  Eed  Eiver  (Texas), 
were  regularly  called  "Jumanes"  by  the  Spaniards  of  New  Mexico.3 
Hodge  has  taken  this  newly  acquired  information  to  be  the  key  to 
the  solution  of  the  mystery,  and,  in  the  recent  study  referred  to, 
has  concluded  that  the  Jumano  formerly  known  in  the  Southwest 
were  identical  with  the  Taovayas,  and,  under  the  latter  name,  were 

lFinal  Report,  in  Papers  of  the  Archaeological  Institute  of  America, 
American  Series,  III,  1890,  p.  169. 

2"The  Jumano  Indians,"  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  American  Antiquarian 
Society  at  the  Annual  Meeting,  April,  1909.  My  references  are  to  the 
reprint  of  that  article. 

3See  an  article  on  the  "Tawehash"  by  the  present  writer  in  Hodge, 
Handbook  of  American  Indians  North  of  Mexico,  Part  II,  p.  705.  The 
information  concerning  the  Jumano  in  1750  therein  contained  was  compiled 
in  1907.  See  Hodge,  "The  Jumano  Indians,"  19,  notes. 


67  The  Jumano  Indians,  1650-1771 

absorbed  by  the  Wichita,,  in  which  tribe  they  are  now  represented.1 
He  has  concluded,  also  apparently,  that  for  the  name  "Taovayas," 
wherever  found,  "Jumano"  can  be  substituted.2 

By  restating  the  hitherto  available  data  concerning  the  Jumano 
and  correlating  it  with  the  recent  discoveries  concerning  the 
Taovayas,  Hodge  has  done  valuable  service  to  the  history  and 
ethnology  of  the  Southwest.  That  his  conclusion  explains  the 
apparent  disappearance  of  a  part  of  the  people  known  as  Jumano, 
the  present  writer  is  convinced.  But  there  has  come  to  light  in 
the  Mexican  archives  a  considerable  fund  of  information  which 
Hodge  did  not  use;  and  a  study  of  it  shows  that  he  has  taken  too 
little  account  of  a  part  of  the  Jumano  and,  it  may  be,  drawn  a  con 
clusion  that  is  too  far-reaching.  The  purpose  of  this  paper  is  to 
present  some  of  the  new  data,  and  thereby  help  to  fill  in  and  cor 
rect  the  hitherto  scanty  history  of  the  Jumano  tribe  between  1683 
and  1750. 

Hodge  regards  the  principal  notices  of  the  Jumano  nation  be 
tween  1629  and  1683  as  referring  to  a  people  living  near  the  Ar 
kansas  Kiver.  He  recognizes  toward  the  close  of  the  eighteenth 
century  a  southern  (with  reference  to  New  Mexico  and  Texas)  as 
well  as  a  northern  people  called  Jumano,  but  seems  to  be  able  to 
trace  them  only  to  1691,  his  discussion  thereafter  being  devoted  to 
the  northern  group.  Even  of  this  group  he  appears  to  be  able  to 
find  only  one  faint  trace  between  1697  and  1719,  that  being  in  the 
year  1700.  In  1719  he  finds  another  trace,  at  which  point  he 
remarks :  "No  definite  reference  to  the  northern  Jumano  between 
1719  and  1750  is  found."  Finally,  the  Jumano  of  whom  he  finds 
mention  are  consistently  hostile  to  the  Apache,  or  at  least  allies  of 
the  enemies  of  the  Apache. 

To  one  who  has  worked  extensively  in  the  sources  of  later  seven 
teenth  and  early  eighteenth  century  Texas  history  recently  made 
available,  and  has  not,  like  Hodge,  made  the  Jumano  a  subject  of 
long  and  special  study,  the  article  in  question  contains  cause  for 
surprise  on  four  counts :  the  first  is  that  the  "Nueces  Eiver,"  where 
the  Jumano  were  several  times  met  between  1629  and  1683,  should 
be  identified  with  the  Arkansas  or  any  stream  in  its  vicinity;  the 

^'The  Jumano  Indians,"  pp.  19-22. 

2See  Handbook  of  American  Indians  North  of  Mexico,  Part  II,  "Syn 
onymy,"  p.  1067. 


Texas  Historical  Association  Quarterly  gg 

second,  that  references  to  the  Jumano  in  the  eighteenth  century 
should  be  considered  so  scarce;  the  third,  that  the  Jumano  should 
be  regarded  in  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  as  primarily 
a  northern  (with  reference  to  Texas  and  New  Mexico)  rather  than 
a  southern  tribe;1  the  fourth,  that  no  mention  should  be  made  of 
Jumano  who  were  not  enemies  but  allies  of  the  Apache,  and  even 
regarded  as  Apache  themselves. 

As  one  who  has  experienced  this  surprise,  the  writer  has  at 
tempted  to  present,  in  the  pages  that  follow,  evidence  to  show  that 
the  "Nueces  River,"  where  the  Jumano  were  found  in  the  third 
and  fifth  decades  of  the  seventeenth  century,  was  probably  the 
Colorado  River  of  Texas,  rather  than  the  Arkansas;  that  the  Ju 
mano  were  frequently  encountered  in  southern  Texas  between  1675 
and  1771,  at  least;  and  that  in  the  second  half  of  this  period  they 
were  regularly  regarded  as  allies  of  the  Apache,  or  even  as  Apache, 
and,  therefore,  as  hostile  to  the  Wichita,  a  part  of  whom,  the 
Taovayas,  we  well  know,  were  regularly  called  Jumano  after  1750. 
Everything  here  stated  is  with  due  deference  to  Mr.  Hodge's  great 
learning  in  matters  of  Southwestern  ethnology. 

II.      THE  IDENTITY   OF    THE    "RIO   DE   LAS    NOEZES,"    HOME   OF   THE 

JUMANO 

The  history  of  the  Jumano  before  1650  it  is  not  my  purpose  to 
discuss,  but  for  the  sake  of  clearness  it  may  be  briefly  summarized. 
The  tribe  was  first  seen  by  Cabeza  de  Vaca  in  1535  on  the  Rio 
Grande,  near  its  junction  with  the  Conchos  River,  a  place  known 
as  La  Junta  (the  junction)  ;  in  1582  they  were  found  in  the  same 
place  by  Espejo;  in  1598  they  were  receiving  religious  instruction 
in  eastern  New  Mexico;  for  several  years  before  1629  they  visited 
Fray  Juan  de  Salas  at  Tsleta,  asking  him  to  go  to  live  among  them ; 
in  response  to  this  request  Father  Salas  in  the  year  named  visited 
the  tribe  more  than  one  hundred  and  twelve  leagues  to  the  east 
ward  of  Santa  Fe,  "or /possibly,"  says  Mr.  Hodge,  "in  the  western 
part  of  Kansas  in  the  vicinity  of  what  later  became  known  as  El 
Quartelejo";  in  1632  they  were  again  visited  by  Father  Salas  in 

*Mr.  William  E.  Dunn,  for  example,  in  a  recent  paper  based  on  a  wide 
use  of  eighteenth  century  Texas  sources,  says  of  the  name  Jumano,  "Most 
commonly  it  applied  to  Indians  living  in  southwestern  Texas  near  the  Rio 
Grande."  THE  QUABTEBLT,  XIV,  268. 


69  The  Jumano  Indians,  1650-1771 

the  buffalo  plains  on  a  stream  which  the  Spaniards  called  the 
"Nueces";  in  1650  and  yet  again  in  1654,  they  were  encountered 
on  the  "Nueces"  River  by  Castillo  and  Guadalajara,  respectively.1 
In  a  former  article  Hodge  states  that  the  "Nueces  River"  visited 
in  1632  and  1650  "must  have  been  the  Arkansas";2  and  in  the 
recent  one  already  cited  he  holds  the  same  opinion.3 

As  viewed  by  the  present  writer  this  conclusion  as  to  the  location 
of  the  "Nueces  River"  does  not  seem  warranted  by  the  sources. 
The  "Ynforme"  of  Father  Posadas,4  Avhicli  is  Hie  chief  authority 
for  the  expeditions  to  the  Nueces  River  between  1629  and  1655, 
states  clearly  and  in  terms  that  the  place  visited  by  Martin  and 
Castillo  in  1650  was  far  to  the  south  of  Santa  Fe.  He  relates 
that  after  reaching  "this  said  place  of  the  Rio  de  las  Nueces  and 
this  nation  of  los  Jumanos,'  J  they  went  down  stream  east-southeast, 
and,  after  having  traveled  some  fifty  leagues,  arrived  at  the  bor 
ders  of  the  Texas  country.  He  then  continues:  "Among  these 
nations  that  of  the  Tejas  must  be  (estard)  in  twenty-eight  degrees; 
from  its  limits  said  Captains  Hernan  Martin  and  Diego  del  Cas- 


,  op.  cit.,  Reprint,  pp.  3-9. 

*Land  of  Sunshine,  XIV,  52;  Posadas,  "Ynforme,"  cited  below. 

8At  this  point  he  writes  thus:  "As  previously  stated,  Fray  Juan  de 
Salas,  earlier  in  the  century,  found  the  Jumano  on  the  prairies  about  112 
leagues  eastward  from  the  Rio  Grande.  But  distances  given  by  the  early 
Spanish  travelers  must  be  regarded  as  only  approximate,  and  there  is  no 
reason  for  believing  that  the  tribe  had  moved  farther  away  simply  because 
Captains  Martin  and  Castillo,  in  1650,  are  said  to  have  found  the  Jumano 
on  the  Nueces,  200  leagues  from  Santa  Fe.  They  may  have  been  in  prac 
tically  the  same  spot  during  this  quarter  century.  There  is  ground  for 
strong  suspicion  that  the  village  or  villages  of  the  Jumano  on  the  plains 
at  this  time  were  in  proximity  to  if  not  actually  at  the  Quartelejo,  or 
Cuartelejo,  mentioned  frequently  by  writers  of  the  eighteenth  century.  The 
distance  of  the  Jumano  from  Santa  F6,  according  to  two  writers  above 
cited,  varied  from  112  to  200  leagues  (300  to  530  miles)  ;  while  El  Cuar 
telejo,  according  to  the  record,  was  from  130  to  160  leagues  (350  to  450 
miles)  from  the  New  Mexican  capital.  This  Indian  outpost  was  situated 
in  the  valley  of  Beaver  Creek,  in  northern  Scott  county,  Kansas."  (op. 
cit.,  Reprint,  3.) 

4"Ynforme  hecho  a  su  Magd.  sobre  las  Tierras  del  Nuevo  Mexico,"  MS. 
in  Memorias  para  la  historia  de  Nueva  Espana,  Tom.  3,  ff.  1-18.  Also  in 
Fernandez  Duran,  Don  Diego  de  Penalosa,  Madrid,  1882.  For  a  note  on 
Posadas,  see  Hodge,  op.  cit.,  Reprint,  p.  11.  The  report  was  written  as 
late  as  1686,  in  consequence  of  a  royal  cedula  of  December  10,  1678,  di 
rected  to  the  viceroy  of  New  Spain,  and  of  another  of  August  2,  1685,  to 
a  succeeding  viceroy.  Posadas  states  this  in  the  opening  paragraphs.  The 
references  which  I  give  are  to  my  own  MS  copy. 


Texas  Historical  Association  Quarterly  70 

tillo  returned  by  the  same  route  (rumbo)1  to  the  Villa  of  Santa 
Fee,  going  up  toward  the  North  as  far  as  is  implied  ly  saying  from 
twenty-eight  to  thirty-seven  degrees  and  a  distance  of  two  hundred- 
fifty  leagues/'2 

From  the  foregoing  it  is  plain  that  Posadas  considered  the 
Nueces  Eiver  to  he  a  stream  whose  middle  course  was  several  de 
grees  of  latitude  south  of  Santa  Fe.  That  this  was  his  under 
standing  is  evident  also  from  other  statements  which  he  made  in 
the  same  report.  He  tells  us  that  flowing  eastward  from  Santa 
Fe,  or,  as  he  puts  it  in  one  place,  east-one-fourth-south-east,  anct 
joined  by  a  tributary  from  the  north,  there  is  a  large  stream  called 
the  Rio  Grande;  and  that  rising  northeastward  from  Pecos  and 
flowing  southeast  is  the  Nueces.  "From  the  Noezes  to  this  [Eio 
Grande]  in  the  direction  of  the  north  will  be  about  one  hundred 
leagues."  From  the  Nueces  to  La  Junta  he  considered  the  dis 
tance  eighty  leagues,3  or  only  three-fourths  of  his  estimate  of  the 
distance  from  El  Paso  to  La  Junta,  and  only  two-fifths  of  that 
from  La  Junta  to  Santa  Fe.  Again,  in  summing  up  he  says, 
"looking  to  the  Southeast  [from  Santa  Fe]  one-fourth  south  we 
shall  find,  two  hundred  leagues  away,  the  junction  of  the  Rio  del 
JSTorte  and  the  Conchas  .  .  .  and  looking  directly  (en  linea 
recta)  to  the  southeast  we  shall  find  at  a  distance  of  two  hundred 
leagues,  the  Rio  de  las  Noezes  in  the  Aijados  nation."  In  other 
words,  as  he  understood  it,  this  point  on  the  Nueces  River,  which 
was  adjacent  to  the  Jumano  country,  was  just  the  same  distance 
southeast  from  Santa  Fe  as  La  Junta  was  southeast-south.4 

It  is  thus  seen  that  a  close  scrutiny  of  the  principal  source  of 
information  regarding  the  "Nueces  River,"  seems  to  preclude  its 
identity  with  the  Arkansas.  It  can  now  be  shown  on  the  strength 
of  positive  evidence,  partly  drawn  from  the  same  document  and 
partly  from  other  sources,  that  there  are  very  strong  reasons  for 

^e  had  previously  stated  that  they  had  reached  the  Nueces  by  a  route 
(rumlo)  different  from  that  followed  by  Salas  and  Ortega  in  1632.  Ibid., 
fol.  5. 

2Posadas,   op.   cit.,  ff.  5-6.     The  italics  are  mine. 

3Ibid.,  fol.  5. 

4IUd.,  2,  4-5;   9-10;    17. 


71  The  Jumano  Indians,  1650-1771 

identifying  it  with  a  stream  much  further  south/  namely,  one  of 
the  upper  branches  of  the  Colorado  of  Texas. 

Being  especially  interested  in  the  pearls  carried  back  by  the 
party  of  Martin  and  Castillo,  the  viceroy  ordered  another  explora 
tion  of  the  Nueces  Kiver,  and  in  1654,  Posadas  tells  us,  Diego  de 
Guadalajara  and  thirty  soldiers  set  out  "in  the  direction  stated" 
[that  is,  southeast]  to  execute  the  command.  "Having  traveled 
about  two  hundred  leagues,  they  arrived  at  the  Rio  de  las  Noezes, 
and  found  on  it  many  Indians  of  the  Jumano  nation/'2 

It  so  happens  that  Juan  Dominguez  de  Mendoza,  a  member  of 
the  Guadalajara  party,  became  the  leader  of  another  expedition  to 
the  Jumano  on  the  Nueces  in  1684.  This  connecting  link  between 
the  two  expeditions  is  important,  for  during  the  latter  journey 
Mendoza  recognized  the  stream  which  he  was  then  on  as  the  one 
Guadalajara  had  visited,  and  he  kept  a  diary  which  beyond  ques 
tion  establishes  the  identity  of  the  stream  with  one  of  the  upper 
branches  of  the  Colorado,  in  west-central  Texas.3 

The  Mendoza  expedition  was  the  result  of  a  petition  made  by 
Juan  Sabeata,  an  Jumano  Indian,  at  Paso  del  Norte  in  October, 

1683,  for  missionaries  and  Spanish  settlers  in  his  own  country.* 

•    ? 

*It  would  be  interesting,  in  this  connection,  to  reproduce  here  the  map 
which  Dr.  Ethel  Z.  Rather,  a  careful  scholar,  made  to  illustrate  the  geo 
graphical  facts  stated  in  the  Posadas  "Ynforme,"  to  accompany  her  trans 
lation  of  it,  executed  for  the  present  writer.  She  had  no  thought,  perhaps 
no  knowledge,  of  a  possible  controversy  over  the  location  of  the  Jumano 
as  understood  by  Posadas.  Her  conclusion  agrees  exactly  with  mine,  as 
stated  above. 


id.,  f.  7.  It  is  clear  that  Posadas  regarded  the  Nueces  River  of 
this  expedition  as  identical  with  that  visited  by  Martin  and  Castillo  four 
years  earlier. 

3The  authority  for  the  direct  assertion  that  Mendoza  was  with  Guad 
alajara  is  Posadas,  "Ynforme,"  op.  cit.,  12.  He  says:  "The  commander- 
in-chief,  Juan  Dominguez  de  Mendoza,  was  in  this  expedition  and  war." 
Mendoza's  recognition  of  the  stream  on  which  Guadalajara  had  been  sup 
ports  the  assertion.  Guadalajara  was  at  the  City  of  Mexico  at  the  time 
when  Posadas  was  there  writing  his  memorial,  and  Posadas  must  have 
made  the  assertion  on  good  authority.  It  is  said,  also,  that  Mendoza  had 
been  there  recently. 

*This  summary  of  the  Mendoza  expedition  is  based  upon  the  MS.  diary, 
the  correspondence,  declarations,  and  representations  connected  with  the 
event.  These  documents  are  contained  in  two  collections.  One  is  entitled 
"Autos  sobre  los  Socorros  q  pide  el  Govr.  de  la  Na.  Mexico,  y  otras  notaa. 
tocantes  a  la  Sublevazion  de  los  Yndios  Barbaros  de  aquella  Prova.,"  etc. 
These  are  original  manuscripts.  The  other  collection  is  entitled  "Viage 
Que  A  solicitud  de  los  Naturales  de  la  Prova.  de  Texas,  y  otras  naciones 


Texas  Historical  Association  Quarterly  72 

Since  the  story  of  this  expedition  has  hitherto  been  marred  by  some 
errors,,1  and  because  of  its  important  bearing  on  Jumano  geography, 
it  will  be  summarized  here.  According  to  his  own  story,  Sabeata 
lived  at  La  Junta  "with  many"  of  his  own  people  and  Julimes. 
Part  of  his  tribe  lived  six  days  to  the  eastward,  or  three-fourths  of 
his  estimate  of  the  distance  from  La  Junta  to  El  Paso.  Three 
days  from  La  Junta  were  the  buffalo  herds;  three  days  [beyond] 
was  the  Nueces  River,  the  home  of  a  part  of  his  tribe  and  of  many 
others,  friends  of  his  own  people;  from  La  Junta  to  the  Texas, 
from  whom  two  messengers  were  waiting  at  La  Junta,  it  was  fif 
teen  or  twenty  days.2 

In  response  to  the  appeal,  Father  Nicolas  Lopez  set  out  on  De 
cember  1  for  La  Junta  with  two  companions,  Fray  Juan  de  Zava- 
leta  and  Fray  Antonio  de  Acevedo.  Fourteen  days  later  he  was 
followed  by  the  Maestro  de  Campo  Juan  Dominguez  de  Mendoza 
and  a  small  band  of  soldiers.3  On  the  way  down  the  Rio  Grande 
Mendoza  noted  in  his  diary  several  ranclierias  of  Suma  Indians, 
and  at  La  Junta,  rancherias  of  Julimes,  on  both  sides  of  the  Rio 
Grande.  The  distance  from  El  Paso  to  La  Junta  he  estimated  at 
ninety-seven  leagues,  which  would  make  each  of  his  leagues  about 
two  miles,  air  line.4  This  point  should  be  kept  in  mind  for  later 
reference. 

Of  the  route  traversed  by  Mendoza  from  La  Junta,  a  minute 

circumvecinas,  y  de  orden  del  Governador  del  Nuevo-Mexico  D.  Domingo 
Gironza  Petris  de  Cruzati  Hizo  el  Maestro  de  Campo  Juan  Dominguez  de 
Mendoza  en  fines  del  ano  de  1683  y  principos  de  1684."  These  documents 
are  copies  from  the  originals.  The  transcript  of  this  second  collection 
fills  ninety-two  typewritten  pages. 

*See  note  2  below,  and  page  75,  note  2. 

2"Declaraci6n"  of  Juan  Sabeata  at  El  Paso,  October  20,  1683.  MS. 
According  to  Governor  Jironza  de  Cruzate,  reporting  the  event  on  October 
30,  Sabeata  had  come  with  six  companions.  They  arrived  on  Santa 
Teresa  Day.  (Letter  of  Jironza  de  Cruzate  to  the  viceroy,  October  30, 
1683.  MS.)  Cf.  Vetancurt,  Cronica,  96-97.  This  author  says  that 
Sabeata  reported  thirty-two  tribes  awaiting  baptism.  Sabeata,  in  fact, 
enumerated  thirty-three,  including  his  own. 

3"Certificaci6n"  by  Mendoza,  El  Paso,  June  23,  1684,  which  gives  the 
date  of  the  starting  of  the  missionaries;  also  Mendoza,  "Derrotero."  Both 
are  MSS.  Escalante  is  incorrect  in  stating  that  Sabeata  arrived  at  El  Paso 
in  December  (see  his  letter  of  April  2,  1778,  in  the  Land  of  Sunshine, 
Vol.  XII,  311).  The  statement  that  Mendoza  accompanied  the  mission 
aries  to  La  Junta  is  also  incorrect. 

4"Derrotero,"  entries  from  December  15  to  December  29. 


73  The  Jumana  Indians,  1650-1771 

study  will  be  reserved  for  a  later  task,  and  only  enough  details  will 
be  given  here  to  show  that  the  Nueces  River  which  Mendoza  reached 
was  clearly  one  of  the  upper  branches  of  the  Colorado.1 

On  January  1,  1684,  the  party,  leaving  Father  Acevedo  to  min 
ister  to  the  Indians  at  La  Junta  (or  La  Novedad  de  las  Cruces, 
as  it  was  now  called),  set  out  for  the  country  of  the  Nueces  River. 
From  La  Junta  the  route  was  evidently  north,  or  a  little  east  of 
north,  to  the  Salado  (Pecos),  which  was  reached  on  the  thirteenth, 
after  going  seventy  leagues.2  The  point  was  perhaps  in  Pecos 
County,  opposite  Crane  County,  Texas,  though  it  may  have  been 
a  short  distance  farther  west,  in  Reeves  County.3  Following  the 
river  for  nine  leagues,  they  crossed  to  the  village  of  the  Jediondas, 
"at  the  foot  of  a  great  rock  which  serves  them  as  a  protection 
against  the  hostile  Apaches/'*  Here  Mendoza  stopped  seven  days. 
Leaving  the  Pecos,  he  now  marched  eastward  across  an  unwatered 
plain.  Forty  leagues  out  he  struck  the  head  of  an  east-flowing 
stream,  remarkable  for  its  shells  (conch eria) .  Mendoza  called  the 
riv,er  the  Nueces,  regarding  it  as  the  one  he  had  come  to  find.  It 
was  perhaps  the  middle  Concho.  Following  this  stream  east 
twenty-one  (or  twenty-four?)  leagues,  and  passing  by  one  or  two 
tributaries,  he  came  to  the  "Rio  de  Seiior  San  Pedro,  which  is  the 
principal  [river],  called  de  las  Perlas,  or,  by  another  name,  de  las 
Nueces  [nuts],  although  they  all  have  them,  which  river  is  the  one 
appearing  in  the  order  which  I  bear  .  .  .  and  which  order  is 
now  fulfilled.  Said  point  is  about  eight  leagues  further  down  the 
said  River  than  the  place  where  Don  Diego  de  Guadalajara  ar 
rived/'5  The  point  where  this  entry  was  written  was  perhaps  near 
San  Angelo,  at  the  junction  of  the  North  and  Middle  Concho 
rivers. 

Nineteen  leagues  further  on  he  reached  the  end  of  his  journey 

1Miss  Anne  Hughes,  one  of  my  students  in  the  University  of  Texas,  has 
made  a  careful  study  of  the  diary,  and  hopes  some  time  to  complete  it  for 
publication. 

2/&i<2.,  entries  from  January  1  to  14. 

slbid.,  entries  from  January  1  to  14.  At  the  point  where  the  Salado 
was  reached,  "a  great  Saline"  was  discovered  a  league  across  the  river. 

4"Derrotero,"  entry  for  January  18.  No  mention  is  made  in  the  diary 
of  the  presence  of  Jumanos  in  the  village.  Cf.  Escalante,  op.  cit.,  p.  311, 
and  Bancroft,  North  Mexican  States  and  Texas,  I,  386. 

5"Derrotero,"  entry  for  February  24.     The  italics  are  mine. 


Texas  Historical  Association  Quarterly  74 

at  an  eastward  flowing  stream,  which  he  called  the  San  Clemente. 
He  was  now  about  forty  leagues  (eighty  miles  according  to  his 
former  estimates)  from  the  head  of  the  "Nueces"  River,  and  twice 
that  distance  from  the  point  where  he  had  left  the  Pecos,  or  eight- 
sevenths  of  the  distance  from  La  Junta  to  the  Pecos  by  the  north 
ward  route.  The  place  was  apparently  on  the  Colorado  near  its 
junction  with  the  Concho.  Mendoza  tells  us  that  on  his  return 
home  he  went  straight  west,  much  of  the  way  near  an  east-flowing 
stream.,  to  the  Pecos,  which,  after  going  some  distance  along  the 
north  bank,  he  crossed  at  the  point  where  he  had  passed  it  before. 
The  testimony  of  this  diary,  supplemented  by  Posadas's  report, 
seems  to  identify  the  Nueces  Eiver,  home  of  the  Jumano  in  1684, 
with  the  Concho,1  whose  very  name  is  significant.  Equally  so  is 
the  fact  that  a  considerable  pearl-fishing  industry  is  still  carried 
on  in  the  Concho  River,  in  the  neighborhood  of  San  Angelo,  which 
is  not  true  of  other  streams  of  central  Texas.  It  may  be  added 
that  the  Concho  is  today  one  of  the  greatest  nut-producing  streams 
in  the  Southwest. 

III.      DATA  REGARDING  THE  JUMANO  IN  SOUTHWEST  TEXAS  BE 
TWEEN  1683  AND  1716 

Regardless  of  its  bearing  on  the  existence  of  a  Jumano  tribe  on 
the  Arkansas  in  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  (and  that 
bearing  is  not  difficult  to  see),  the  above  conclusion  as  to  the  iden 
tity  of  the  "JSTueces  River"  implies,  of  course,  the  presence  of 
Jumano  in  southwestern  Texas  at  that  period.  With  this  as  a 
starting  point,  it  is  my  purpose  now  to  present  evidence,  much  of 
which  has  never  been  taken  into  account,  to  show  that  Jumano 
continued  to  range  through  the  same  general  region  till  after  the 
middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  at  least.  Some  of  the  evidence 
even  points  to  a  residence  there  after  the  time  when  Hodge  implies 
that  the  whole  tribe  were  living  on  the  Red  River  under  the  name 

]To  this  conclusion  there  is  only  one  alternative.  If,  on  his  outward 
journey,  Mendoza  struck  the  Pecos,  in  Reeves  county,  and  followed  it  nine 
leagues  up  stream  instead  of  nine  leagues  down  stream,  the  Nueces  would 
be  Giraud  Creek,  and  the  San  Clemente  the  Colorado  below  Giraud  Creek. 
One  thing  in  favor  of  this  conclusion  is  the  fact  that  Mendoza  returned  to 
the  Pecos  by  a  more  southern  route  tha%  that  which  he  followed  outward. 
("Derrotero,"  entries  for  March  16  and  May  21.) 


75  The  Jumano*  Indians,  1650-1771 

of  Taovayas,  and  in  other  ways  disturbs  views  that  have  been 
regarded  as  established. 

It  may  be  noted,  as  a  preliminary  to  the  discussion  which  fol 
lows,  that  the  forms  Juman,  Chuman,  Jumane,  Jumana,  Xoman, 
Xumana,  etc.,  frequently  occur  in  the  Spanish  documents  as  vari 
ants  of  the  name  Jumano.  Indeed,  in  the  Spanish  sources  Jumane 
and  Jumana  occur  much  more  frequently  than  Jumano,  the  form 
which  has  been  adopted  by  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology 
and  which  I  have  followed  for  that  reason.  Juman^  Xuman,  Chu 
man,  etc.,  are  sometimes  used  for  the  tribe  while  the  people  are 
referred  to  as  Jumanes,  Xumanes,  Chomanes,  etc.  In  the  seven 
teenth  century  the  name  was  probably  pronounced  Zhuman. 

To  show  that  during  the  decade  between  1683  and  1693  the 
Jumano  lived  in  the  general  region  of  the  Eio  Grande,  from 
La  Junta  eastward,  the  evidence  is  ample.  To  go  back  a  step,  in 
1675  Fernando  del  Bosque  and  Fathers  Larios  and  San  Buenaven 
tura  found  the  Indians  of  the  Xoman  tribe  at  a  place  called  Dacate 
Mountain,  a  short  distance  north  of  the  Eio  Grande  and  east  of 
the  Pecos.1  While  there  is  no  certainty  that  these  Xoman  were 
the  Choman,  or  Jumano,  known  on  other  grounds  to  have  been 
near  the  Rio  Grande  at  this  time,  yet  there  is  a  strong  probability 
that  such  was  the  case.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  Jumano 
chief,  Juan  Sabeata,  claimed  in  1683  to  live  near  La  Junta  "with 
many"  of  his  tribe,  and  that  part  of  the  tribe  were  found  in  1684 
on  the  "Nueces"  (Colorado)  River.  It  is  clear,  moreover,  that 
Father  Posadas  regarded  the  Jumano  to  be  living  near  the  Rio 
Grande  when  he  wrote  his  "Ynforme"  (about  1686).  He  states 
that  at  La  Junta  Mendoza  and  Lopez  "saw  many  Indians — Ju- 
manas,  Rayados,  Oposmes,  Polupames,  Polaques,  and  others."2 
After  describing  the  Apache  range  over  the  great  plains  of  western 
Texas,  he  states  that  the  home  of  the  Jumano  is  south  of  the 

*Autos  of  the  expedition  of  Antonio  Balcarcel  Bivadeneyra  y  Sotomayor. 
MS. 

2"Ynforme,"  op.  cit.,  4.  Vetancurt  states  that  Father  L6pez  and  his  com 
panions  found  at  La  Junta  "a  great  multitude  of  Xumanas  and  Tejas; 
they  decided  to  return  with  better  preparations  and  sufficient  ministers. 
.  .  .  Some  friars  returned  with  the  intention  of  going  among  the 
Xumanas  and  Texas."  (CVdnica,  pp.  96-97).  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
neither  L6pez  nor  Mendoza  reported  a  great  multitude  of  Xumanas  at  this 
point,  nor  did  the  ministers  return  to  El  Paso  before  going  to  the  Nueces 
River.  Two  Texas  messengers  were  reported  at  La  Junta  by  Sabeata. 


Texas  Historical  Association  Quarterly  76 

Apache,  on  the  Nueces  River,  but  that  they  are  now  living  near 
the  Rio  Grande,  having  been  forced  back  by  the  Apache.1 

The  same  general  impression  as  to  the  home  of  the  Jumano  at 
this  time  is  given  by  other  and  entirely  distinct  groups  of  sources. 
The  French  of  La  Salle's  party  learned  in  eastern  Texas  of  the 
Jumano  as  a  tribe  living  to  the  southwest  of  their  route.  When 
among  the  Teao,  of  the  lower  Colorado  country,  in  1687,  La  Salle 
was  informed  that  some  members  of  this  tribe  had  gone  to  the 
southwest  or  west  and  entered  into  relations  with  the  Chouman 
tribe,  friends  of  the  Spaniards  and  the  Cenis  (Hasinai).2  That 
the  Chouman  were  unquestionably  the  Jumano,  we  shall  presently 
see.  Father  Douay  reported  the  Chouman  tribe  to  be  living  only 
two  days  from  the  Spanish  settlements.3  And  while  among  the 
Cadodacho  Delisle  learned  of  the  Chouman  as  a  tribe  in  the  south 
west  and  friends  of  his  hosts.4  In  1688  we  again  hear,  through 
Spanish  sources,  of  Jumano  near  the  Rio  Grande,  on  the  border 
of  Coahuila.  During  the  uprising  in  that  year  of  the  Colorados, 
Cabezas,  Tobozos,  and  others,  the  leader  of  the  outbreak,  "Don 
Dieguillo,"  sent  a  messenger  to  the  Teocodames  (Terocodames), 
"Jumanas,"  and  others,  to  get  them  to  join  the  revolt.5  It  is  well 
known  that  the  Terocodame  tribe  lived  at  this  time  neW  the  Rio 
Grande  about  Eagle  Pass,  and  it  is  quite  probable  that  the  Jumanas 
now  mentioned  with  the  Terocodame  were  the  same  as  the  Xoman 
seen  with  them  north  of  the  river  in  1675.  In  the  same  year, 
1688,  Capt.  Diego  Ramon  sent  a  messenger  across  the  Rio  Grande 
to  call  the  "Jumanes"  and  other  nations  to  the  mission  of  Nada- 

1"From  east  to  west  on  the  southern  border  this  Apache  nation  is  con 
tiguous  with  the  following  nations:  after  the  Tejas,  with  the  nation  of 
the  Aijados  [and  then]  with  the  nation  of  the  Cuitoas  and  of  the  Escan- 
jaquez,  in  a  district  of  fifty  leagues;  and  these  nations  being  those  stated 
on  the  river  of  the  Noezes,  the  Apache  nation  [now]  keeps  them  driven 
back  to  the  Rio  del  Norte,  a  district  of  a  hundred  leagues,  or  a  little  less; 
and  after  these  nations,  [i.  e.,  westward]  follows  that  of  the  Jumanas, 
with  the  rest  that  are  mentioned  at  the  junction  of  the  Rio  del  Norte  and 
the  Conchos;  and  [the  Apache]  keep  these  also  driven  back  in  this  said 
place,  and  dispossessed  of  the  Noezes  river."  "Ynforme,"  11-13. 

2Joutel,  "Relation,"  in  Margry,  Decouvertes  et  Etablissements,  etc., 
Ill,  299. 

•French,  Hist.  Coll.  La.   (1852),  203-205. 

4Margry,  op.  cit.,  Ill,  410. 

'"Declaraci6n"  of  General  Alonso  de  Le6n,  May  17,  1788.  Portillo, 
Apuntes  para  la  Historia  Antigua  Coahuila  y  Tejas,  222. 


77  The  Jumano  Indwns,  1650-1771 

dores.  The  messenger  reported  that  he  went  to  where  the  Jumanes 
were,,  and  was  told  by  them  that  a  short  time  before  they  had 
joined  some  Frenchmen  and  Texas  Indians  who  had  come  by  on 
a  campaign  against  the  Apache.1  The  reference  is  probably  to 
the  campaign  made  by  some  of  the  La  Salle  party  with  the  Texas. 
In  1689,,  when  Alonso  de  Leon  was  on  his  way  from  Monclova  to 
Matagorda  Bay,  he  encountered  five  leagues  south  of  the  Rio 
Grande,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Eagle  Pass,  a  rancheria  of  Jumenes 
and  others.2  They  may  have  been  the  same  as  the  Jumanes  pre 
viously  reported  in  that  region. 

If  these  references  to  the  Xoman,  Jumanes,  and  Jumenes  on 
the  borders  of  Coahuila  between  1675  and  1689,  taken  together 
with  the  account  of  the  Mendoza  expedition,  are  not  conclusive, 
in  the  records  of  1691  we  find  evidence  which  removes  all  uncer 
tainty  in  the  matter.  In  June  of  that  year,  while  Teran  and 
Massanet  were  at  the  San  Antonio,  a  Payaya  chief  offered  to  guide 
them  eastward  to  "the  Rancheria  of  the  Chomanes."3  Near  the 
Guadalupe  they  found  the  rancheria,  which  was  a  temporary  one 
occupied  during  the  buffalo  hunt.  There  was  our  old  friend,  Juan 
Sabeata,  "con  su  gente  y  nation  de  Yndios  Chomas,"  the  chief  of 
the  Cantonas,  "who  brought  his  people  with  the  Chomanes";  the 
Cibolas,  the  Caynaaya,  and  the  Catqueza.4  Massanet  gave  the 
number  in  the  rancheria  as  3000  and  Teran  as  2000.  The  autos 
of  the  Teran  expedition  give  the  number  of  the  "Xumanas"  met 
here  as  300  warriors,  and  of  the  whole  rancheria  as  900  warriors.5 
The  same  document  repeatedly  speaks  of  them  as  the  "nacion 
Xumano  (or  Xumana)  del  rio  del  norte  y  Salado"  —  the  Xumano 
tribe  of  the  rivers  del  Norte  and  Salado  (or  Pecos).  More  explicit 
is  Massanet's  statement,  which  also  establishes  the  identity  of  the 
different  name  forms  given  heretofore,  and  beyond  doubt  fixes  the 
home  of  the  Jumano  at  this  period  on  the  Rio  Grande.  It  must 
be  remembered  that  he  wrote  after  a  long  conference  with  Juan 


del  Indio  Diego  de  Le6n,"  ibid.,  237. 

2De  Le6n,  "Derrotero,"  in  Mem,  de  Nueva  Espana,  XXVII,  2 

3Massanet,  "Diario,"  in  Mem.  de  Nueva  Espana,  XXVII,  96. 

4Massanet,  ibid.,  97-102.  Teran,  in  his  "Descripci6n  Diaria,"  states  that 
on  the  bank  of  the  Guadalupe  "halle  las  Naciones  Jumana,  Cibula,  Cas- 
queza,  Cantona,"  ibid.,  28-29. 

6  Autos  of  the  Teran  expedition,  MS.  109,  110,  112,  126,  127,  129. 


Texas  Historical  Association  Quarterly  78 

Sabeata,  who  spoke  Spanish,  and  with  the  chief  of  the  Catqueza, 
who  had  been  raised  in  Parral  and  had  lived  in  New  Mexico,  later 
returning  to  his  people.'1  He  says  :  "The  said  nations  of  Indians, 
Choma,  Cibola,  and  Caynaagua  are  Indians  who  live  on  and  whose 
country  is  the  bank  of  the  Eio  Del  Norte.  They  [or  the  last  named, 
estos]  are  contiguous  to  the  Salineros,  who  live  on  the  banks  of 
the  Salado  [Pecos]  which  joins  the  rio  del  Norte.  ,  They  are  con 
tiguous  also  to  the  Apaches  and  have  wars  with  them.  The 
Apaches  are  a  cordillera  which  runs  from  east  to  west  and  are  at 
war  with  all.  Only  with  the  Salineros  do  they  have  peace.  .  .  . 
These  of  the  nation  Choma  are  the  Indians  which  in  El  Parral 
and  INTuevo  Mexico  they  call  Jumanes.  Every  year  they  come  to 
reconnoiter  the  Rio  de  Guadalupe,  and  some  go  as  far  as  los  Texas. 
They  come  to  kill  buffalo,  and  carry  back  [llevari]  the  skins,  be 
cause  in  their  country  there  are  no  buffalo.  As  soon  as  the  cold 
weather  comes  they  go  to  their  country.  Don  Juan  Labiata 
[Sabeata],2  Captain  of  said  Chomanes,  displayed  a  commission  as 
Governor  of  his  nation  and  those  who  might  be  in  his  following. 
Another  Indian  of  the  same  nation  displayed  another  commission 
as  Lieutenant  of  the  said  Don  Juan  Labiata.  Both  commissions 
were  given  them  by  the  Governor  of  Nueva  Viscaya,  Dn.  Juan 
Ysidro  Pardinas."3  Sabeata  told  Massanet  that  many  of  the 
people  he  had  with  him  had  been  baptized  at  Parral,  and  asked 
the  missionary  to  return  with  him  to  his  country,  but  Massanet 
put  him  off  with  excuses,  remarking  in  his  diary  that  since  these 
Indians  entered  Parral  and  El  Paso  every  year,  they  could  have 
ministers  if  they  chose.4 

Writing  in  the  same  year  (1691),  Fray  Francisco  Casanas  de 
Jesus  Maria,  missionary  on  the  Neches,  mentions  the  Chuman 
tribe  as  allies  of  the  Texas  and  enemies  of  the  Apache,  and  living 
to  the  southwest.5  In  the  summer  of  1693  Gregorio  Salinas  car- 


99. 

2In  the  original  the  spelling  is  "Sabeata." 

3Ibid.,  191.  Teran  says  "y  los  mandones  competentes  formales  de  los 
Governadores  actuales  de  la  Viscaya  y  Nuevo  Mexico."  op.  tit.,  28-29. 

*Ibid.,  101.  In  spite  of  their  friendly  conference,  the  Jumano  are  re 
ported  to  have  followed  the  Spanish  expedition  to  the  San  Marcos  (Colo 
rado),  stealing  horses  and  causing  other  trouble.  (Autos  of  the  expedi 
tion,  109,  110,  112,  126,  127,  129,  etc.) 

"Casanas,   "RelaciSn."     MS. 


79  The  Jumano  Indians,  1650-1771 

ried  succor  from  Monclova  to  the  missionaries  on  the  Neches. 
Among  the  tribes  which  he  reported  seeing  on  the  way  were  the 
Jnmanes.1 

We  ha,ve  thus  been  able  to  follow  almost  continuously  for  the 
decade  between  1683  and  1693  a  Jumano  tribe  living  near  the 
Kio  Grande,  both  above  and  below  the  Pecos,  or  hunting  buffalo  in 
south  central  Texas.  Their  winter  home  was  characteristically 
near  the  Pecos  and  Eio  Grande,  while  in  summer  they  journeyed 
to  the  buffalo  plains  of  the  Guadalupe  and  the  Colorado.  They 
were  enemies  of  the  Apaches,  who  had  crowded  them  southward 
from  the  upper  Colorado. 

In  October,  1693,  Texas  was  abandoned  by  the  Spaniards,  and 
until  1716  they  had  relatively  slight  contact  with  the  province. 
But  even  during  that  period  we  get  glimpses  of  the  Jumano  in 
the  south.  At  the  time  of  the  withdrawal,  Joseph  de  Urrutia  was 
left  wounded  among  the  Cantona,  Indians  of  the  lower  Colorado. 
In  later  years,  when  captain  at  San  Antonio,  he  declared  that  in 
the  course  of  the  seven  years  during  which  he  remained  among 
the  Indians  he  became  their  "capitan  grande,"  leading  the  allies 
against  the  Apache,  "sometimes  with  10,000  or  12,000  Indians, 
and  others  with  more,  of  the  nations  where  I  was  [and?],  of  the 
Pelones  and  Jumanes."2  This  traces  the  tribe  till  1700.  In  1706 
we  hear  of  an  Juman  Indian  at  Monclova,  south  of  the  Rio  Grande, 
giving  testimony3  based  on  information  gained  from  an  Indian 
of  the  Timamar  tribe,  that  is  a  tribe  living  near  the  Eio  Grande, 
implying  that  the  Juman  had  probably  been  in  that  region.4 

^'Dictamen  Fiscal,"  in  "Mem.  de  Nueva  Espana,"  XXVII,  185.  He  went 
east  in  May  and  June,  and  returned  in  June  and  July.  It  will  be  noted 
that  the  season  was  the  same  as  that  of  the  Massanet  expedition  of  1691. 

2Letter  of  July  4,  1733.     MS.  in  the  Archive  General,  Mexico. 

'The  testimony  was  given  incident  to  an  investigation  of  certain  rumors 
of  French  in  Texas.  "Diferentes  Noticias  de  Indies  de  como  ay  Espafioles 
azia  los  Texas."  MS.  in  Archive  General  y  Publico,  Mexico. 

4It  is  noteworthy  that  when  Fathers  Espinosa  and  Olivares  made  their 
expedition  to  the  San  Marcos  in  1709  they  did  not  mention  seeing  the 
Jumano,  though  they  did  see  Chief  Cantona.  (Espinosa,  "Diario,"  MS. 
1709.) 


Texas  Historical  Association  Quarterly  80 

IV.       BETWEEN    1716    AND    1750  I    THE    JUMANO    IN   ALLIANCE   WITH 

THE  APACHE 

When  the  Spaniards  again  occupied  Texas,  in  1716,  they  found 
that  a  noteworthy  change  had  taken  place,  namely,  that  the  Jumano 
had  become  allies  of  the  Apache  and  enemies  of  the  Spaniards  and 
of  the  Texas,  in  which  capacity  they  were  thereafter  frequently 
mentioned.  Thus,  while  in  eastern  Texas  in  1716,  Domingo  Ramon 
wrote  of  "finding  ourselves  surrounded  on  the  north  by  the  ene 
mies  of  los  Texas,  namely,  the  Apaches,  Jumanes,  Chanas,"  and 
others.1  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  Jumanes  whom 
he  mentions  were  living  far  to  the  north,  though  they  may  have 
been.  The  Apaches  were  at  this  time  occupying  most  of  western 
Texas,  and  the  Chanes  Eiver  was  the  present  Llano.  In  1718 
an  Indian  named  Juanillo  "of  the  Jumana  nation"  was  reported 
at  San  Juan  Bautista  to  have  been  instrumental  in  causing  a  de 
fection  among  the  Indians  of  the  missions  on  the  Rio  Grande 
which  involved  a  threat  to  destroy  the  Spaniards.2  Again,  an  item 
of  evidence  recorded  in  1724  shows  not  only  the  friendliness  be 
tween  the  Apache  and  the  Jumano,  but  also  that  in  1721  the 
latter  lived,  as  formerly,  in  the  region  of  the  Conchos  and  Rio 
del  Norte.3  In  1721  the  Marques  de  Aguayo,  when  crossing  Texas, 
named  a  small  stream  east  of  the  Brazos  the  "Arroyo  de  los 
Jumanes,"  but  the  circumstance  prompting  him  to  do  so  does  not 
appear. 

Documents  written  during  the  serious  Apache  troubles  at  San 
Antonio  between  1731  and  1733  make  it  still  plainer  that 
Jumano  were  frequently  in  Texas  and  were  there  regularly  re- 


,  "Representation,"  in  Mem.  de  Nueva  Espana,  XXVII,  160. 

declaration  of  Indian  Joseph,  who  came  from  eastern  Texas  with  a 
French  courier.  MS.  in  the  Archivo  General  y  Publico,  Mexico.  It  seems 
that  the  revolting,  or  rather  the  absconding,  Indians  were  those  of 
Rancheria  Grande,  in  central  Texas. 

*In  1724  an  Indian  named  Ger6nimo,  a  native  of  Santa  Elena,  Nueva 
Viscaya,  who  came  to  San  Juan  Bautista  with  some  Apache,  declared  that 
about  three  years  before  he  had  been  captured  on  the  Conchos  River  by 
the  Tobosos,  and  had  lived  for  a  year  "among  the  Tovosos  and  Jumanes," 
when  he  was  purchased  by  some  Apache,  among  whom  he  had  lived  two 
years.  He  also  declared  that  when,  a  short  time  before  his  deposition  was 
made,  the  Apaches  were  planning  to  destroy  San  Antonio,  a  peace  mes 
sage  from  San  Antonio,  Texas,  reached  the  Apache  among  whom  he  was 
living  and  was  read  by  "two  Religious  who  go  (andan)  among  them  with 
the  Juman  nation."  (  "Declaraci6n  del  Indio  Ger6nimo,"  1724.  MS.) 


81  The  Jumano  Indians,  1650-1771 

garded  as  allies  of  the  Apaches  and  enemies  of  the  Spaniards. 
Thus,  in  1731  some  arrows  left  by  Indians  in  a  fight  at  San 
Antonio  were  declared  by  an  Apache  captive  to  have  belonged  to 
"Apaches,  Pelones,  and  Jumanes  ;  that  all  three  are  extremely  pop 
ulous  and  very  warlike,  and,  confident  of  their  great  numbers,  have 
annihilated  and  terrorized  all  the  nations  living  in  these  parts,  and 
admit  no  others  to  their  friendship."1  A  year  later  it  was  declared 
in  a  junta  de  guerra  at  San  Antonio  that  in  the  campaign  made 
by  Bustillo  against  the  Apaches  in  1732  a  rancheria  which  was 
attacked  seventy  leagues  northwest  of  San  Antonio,  in  the  region 
of  San  Saba,  was  composed  of  four  tribes,  Apache,  Ypanda  (Pe- 
lon?)  Yxande,  and  Chenti.  Captives  taken  declared  that  the 
major  portion  of  the  tribes  had  been  at  the  time  further  west  and 
north,  "but  not  very  distant/'  "that  the  people  who  were  in  said 
rancheria  were  only  a  small  portion  of  each  nation,  there  not  being 
in  said  Rancheria  any  Indians  of  the  Jumanes  Nation,  which  is 
very  numerous  and  which  we  know  joins  with  that  of  the  Apaches 
to  come  and  make  war  on  us."  Since  the  fight  was  near  the  San 
Saba  River,  this  would  put  the  Jumano  in  the  general  region  of 
their  old  haunts  on  the  "Nueces"  River,  i.  e.,  the  upper  Colorado.2 
Again,  in  a  letter  of  November  26,  1732,  to  Almazan,  the  viceroy 
referred  to  the  Apache,  Xumane,  and  Pelon  (Lipan?)  as  "com 
mon  enemies  of  this  province."3  Yet  again,  in  the  residencia  of 
Bustillo  y  Zevallos,  governor  of  Texas,  at  San  Antonio  in  1734,  a 
witness  declared  that  "he  had  not  heard  that  during  the  adminis 
tration  of  Bustillo  the  peaceful  tribes  had  "revolted  or  allied  to 
do  damage  to  the  Jurisdiction  with  the  Apaches,  Pelones,  Jumanas, 
Chenttis,  or  any  others  who  insult  These  Lands."4 

Thus,  there  is  plenty  of  evidence  to  show  that  the  Jumano  of 
southern  Texas,  who  in  the  seventeenth  century  had  been  bitter 
but  losing  enemies  of  the  Apache,  have  come  in  the  second  and 
third  decades  of  the  eighteenth  century  to  be  regarded  in  Texas 
as  the  regular  allies  of  the  Apache,  and  that  during  this  period 


to  the  viceroy,  Bexar,  December  1,  1731,  in  "Autos  sobre  las 
provideneias,"  etc.,  5. 

2Ibid.,  IS,  29. 

*Ibid.,  38. 

4Testimony  of  Antonio  de  los  Santos,  August  21,  1734.  Autos  of  the 
residencia,  MS.  in  the  B§xar  Archives. 


Texas  Historical  Association  Quarterly  82 

they  are  still  to  be  found  in  their  old  haunts  both  along  the  Eio 
Grande  and  in  centfal  Texas. 

And  now  the  Jumano  history  takes  on  still  a  different  phase. 
They  come  to  be  regarded  not  merely  as  allies  of  the  Apache,  but 
as  a  division  of  the  Apache,  and  are  called  "los  Apaches  Jumanes." 
The  first  expression  of  this  view  that  has  come  to  the  writer's 
notice  is  that  given  in  1733  by  Joseph  de  Urrutia,  then  captain 
at  San  Antonio.  Writing  on  July  4  of  that  year,  he  told  of  his 
former  campaigns  with  the  Pelones  (Lipan?)  and  Jumane,  "who, 
it  appears,  have  now  incorporated  themselves  in  the  said  Apaches, 
which  to  me  is  very  strange,  because  in  that  time  (1693-1700), 
when  I  lived  among  them,  they  were  declared  enemies.''1  This 
affiliation  of  the  Jumano  is  best  reflected  in  the  discussion  which 
occurred  in  1746  relative  to  the  suppression  of  certain  garrisons 
in  Nuevo  Leon  and  the  transference  of  the  presidio  of  Sacramento, 
in  northern  Coahuila,  to  the  San  Xavier  River  of  Texas.  One  of 
the  principal  arguments  per  contra  was  based  on  the  need  of  de 
fending  the  provinces  of  Coahuila  and  Nueva  Leon  against  the 
Toboso  and  the  "Apaches  Jumanes,"  of  the  Eio  Grande.  Bustillo 
y  Zevallos,  ex-governor  of  Texas,  wrote  on  May  28,  1746:  "The 
extinction  of  the  garrisons  of  Boca  de  Leones  and  Serralvo,  in  the 
New  Kingdom  of  Leon,  does  not  seem  to  me  the  safest  distribu 
tion  .  .  .  being  so  useful  and  so  constantly  occupied  with  the 
continual  war,  both  of  the  rebellious  Indians  of  its  vast  jurisdic- 
tion?  as  well  as  of  those  who  enter  from  la  Nueva  Vizcaya,  and  of 
the  Apaches  Jumanes,  who,  crossing  the  deserts  of  the  province  of 
Coahuila,  pass  to  the  Kingdom  and  to  the  neighborhood  of  Sal- 
til  lo."  With  respect  to  Coahuila,  he  said :  "The  arms  of  the  cap 
ital  of  this  province,  always  in  the  hands  of  the  soldiers,  aided  by 
those  of  El  Sacramento,  restrain  the  Nations  of  Apaches  Jumanes, 
who  are  immediately  on  the  other  side,  of  the  Rio  Grande,2  and  at 
times  on  this  side.  With  respect  to  this,  the  Governor  of  the 
province,  as  a  result  of  a  representation  made  to  him  by  the  Cap 
tains  of  El  Sacramento,  Eio  Grande,  and  the  citizens,  a  few  days 
ago,  made  the  same  representation  (la  hizo)  to  this  Superior  Gov- 

XMS.  in  the  Archive  General  y  Publico,  Mexico.      (B.  MS.  Misc.)      This 
statement  seems  to  shed  important  light  on  Lipan  history  also. 
'The  italics  are  mine. 


83  The  Jumano  Indians,  1650-1771 

eminent,  begging  license  to  make  a  Campaign  against  them,  since 
the  hostilities  are  continuous  on  the  part  of  the  latter  (esios)  and 
of  the  Tobosos,  who,  with  this  name,  pass  from  la  Viscaya,  as 
said  above."1 

While  the  above  discussion  illustrates  the  way  in  which  in  Texas 
and  Coahuila  the  Jumano  had  come  to  be  regarded  as  Apache, 
being  called  "Apaches  Jumanes,"  it  makes  it  clear  also  that  in 
1746  they  were  habitually  found  in  the  region  of  the  Rio  Grande, 
on  the  borders  of  Coahuila  and  Nueva  Viscaya,  and  that  thev  some 
times  made  raids  into  Nuevo  Leon. 

V.      THE   JUMANO   AT   WAR   WITH    THE   TAOVAYAS,   1771 

A  still  different  turn  is  given  to  Jumano  history  when,  as  it  ap 
pears,  the  Jumano  of  the  Apache  alliance  engage  in  bitter  warfare 
with  a  people  of  northern  Texas  called  by  the  same  name.  As  has 
already  been  stated,  it  is  now  well  known  that  from  1750  forward 
the  Taovayas  (Tawehash)  of  the  Red  River  country  were  by  the 
Spaniards  of  New  Mexica  frequently  called  Jumanes  (Jumano),2 
that  they  were  bitterly  hostile  to  the  Apache,  and  frequently,  if  not 
customarily,  allied  with  the  bitterest  enemy  of  the  Apache,  the  Co- 
manche.  If  the  Taovayas  in  1750  embraced  all  the  Jumano,  a 
fundamental  change,  both  of  affiliation  and  location,  must  have 
come  over  those  found  near  the  Rio  Grande  in  1746  and  at  that 
time  called  Apaches  Jumanes.  It  is  conceivable  that  such  a 
change  might  possibly . have  occurred;  but  this  seems  hardly  prob 
able,  especially  in  view  of  evidence  recorded  in  1771. 

The  evidence  alluded  to  is  as  follows:  About  November,  1771, 
Alexo.  de  la  Garza  Falcon  wrote  to  the  viceroy  from  the  presidio 
of  San  Saba  (recently  transferred  to  Villa  Nueva  de  San  Fer 
nando)3  of  the  need  of  more  soldiers  there,  in  view  of  the  "im 
minent  danger  in  which  it  now  stands  of  being  attacked  by  the 
barbarous,  hostile,  nations  of  Indians,  Apaches,  Farones,  Natages, 

Memorial  of  Bustillo  y  Zevallos,  May  28,  1746,  MS. 
2Bolton,  in  Handbook  of  American  Indians,  II,  705;  Hodge,  "The  Jumano 
Indians,"   19-20. 

3Near  modern  Eagle  Pass.  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  W.  E.  Dunn  for  aid 
in  the  location  of  the  presidio  of  San  Saba  at  this  time.  The  later 
movements  of  that  establishment  are  very  hard  to  trace,  and  have  never 
been  successfully  followed  until  recently,  when  Mr.  Dunn  made  an  ex 
haustive  study  of  the  subject. 


Texas  Historical  Association  Quarterly  84 

Mescaleros,  Jumanes,  Lipanes,  and  other  frontier  nations  allied 
with  them,  both  on  account  of  the  continual  robberies  and  mur 
ders  which  they  commit  [in]  this  neighborhood,  and  because  there 
are  now  at  a  distance  of  ten  leagues  from  this  Presidio  about 
3,000  of  said  nations,  and  others  not  known,  who,  on  the  occasion  of 
having  come  out  victorious  from  an  encounter  which  they  had 
with  the  Comanches  and  Taguaias  [Taovayas,  Jumano],,  gathered 
to  celebrate  the  victory  and  eat  some  of  the  Comanche  and 
Taguaias  prisoners  whom  they  captured."1 

If  this  experienced  frontier  officer,  stationed  at  a  fort  on  the 
edge  of  the  Apacheria,  and  which  was  designed  originally  to  with 
stand  the  attacks  of  the  Comanche  and  the  Taovayas,  knew  the  In 
dian  situation,  and  did  not  by  mere  accident  include  the  Jumano  in 
his  enumeration,  we  have  in  1771  a  people  called  Jumano  celebrat 
ing  a  recent  victory  over  other  people  called  Jumano.  Such  an  in 
advertence  of  Falcon's  part  would  seem  hardly  likely  to  occur,  in 
view  of  the  conditions  which  had  called  the  presidio  of  San  Saba 
into  existence.  Yet  the  fact  that  aside  from  this  one,  no  reference 
to  Jumano  in  Texas  other  than  the  Taovayas  has  been  noted  later 
than  1750,  leads  one  to  wonder  if  some  such  error  was  not  made  by 
the  officer.  But,  if  this  statement  was  correct,  it  is  clear  that  not 
all  <5f  the  Jumano  had  been  absorbed  by  the  Wichita  in  1771,  and 
that  at  that  date  there  were  two  people  by  the  same  name  at  war 
with  each  other.2 

Here  I  leave  the  matter  without  offering  a  solution  of  this  point, 
or  of  several  others  which  will  now  inevitably  be  raised.  Enough 
has  been  said  to  show  that  the  Jumano  were  by  no  means  a  lost 
tribe  in  the  eighteenth  century;  that  from  1650  (at  least,  and  prob 
ably  from  1632,  as  well  as  much  earlier)  they  were  frequently 
encountered  in  west-central  and  southern  Texas;  and  that  unless 
there  were  distinct  divisions  whose  separate  histories  have  not  been 
traced,  they  more  than  once  changed  their  relations  with  the 
Apache,  whose  enemies  they  have  usually  if  not  always  been 
regarded. 

^S.  in  the  Archive  General,  Mexico. 

2A  corollary  to  this  would  be  the  conclusion  that  "Taovayas"  can  not 
be  taken  as  synonymous  with  "Jumano"  wherever  it  is  found. 


3 


